Intergenerational Leaning Handbook_Thomas Fischer_MENON


Published on

Thomas Fischer, Senior Researcher of the MENON Network EEIG, partner in the Big Foot project, presented the Intergenerational Learning Handbook, developed by MENON

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Intergenerational Leaning Handbook_Thomas Fischer_MENON

  1. 1. Title of the Presentation Sub-title Intergenerational Approach Handbook Thomas Fischer MENON Network EEIG Big Foot Final Conference, 05 & 06 June 2013, Vienna. Austria CROSSING GENERATIONS, CROSSING MOUNTAINS
  2. 2. To start with …. Intergenerational connections may be magic … … but magic takes work! From ‘Developing an Intergenerational Programme in Your Early Childcare and Education Centre’ in A Guidebook for Early Childhood Practitioners (Penn State University, USA, 2003)
  3. 3. Towards a (Intergenerational) Learning Society • The Knowledge (or Learning) Society is characterised by an organic link between the different contexts of learning: • Individual learning; • Community learning; • Organisational learning; • Territorial learning (i.e. learning cities and regions). • The Industrial Society was focused on training (assimilation): • the era of mass media was focused on delivery of pre-packaged contents; • central-design, push & control; • The Knowledge Society is focused on learning (accommodation): • the era of knowledge media is focused on knowledge co- construction; • co-design, pull & share. • Up to 1970s Learning to work • 70s – 80s Learning at work • 80s – 90s Learning through work • 21st century Learning is work Learning Communities Learning Organisations Learning Territories Learning Individuals Intergenerational Learning Landscape
  4. 4. What is Intergenerational Learning “The way that people of all ages can learn together and from each other. IL is an important part of Lifelong Learning, where the generations work together to gain skills, values and knowledge. Beyond the transfer of knowledge, IL fosters reciprocal learning relationships between different generations and helps to develop social capital and social cohesion in our ageing societies. IL is one way of addressing the significant demographic change we are experiencing across Europe and is as a way of enhancing intergenerational solidarity through intergenerational practice (IP).” (EMIL – European Map of Intergenerational Leaning, 2013)
  5. 5. And what is Intergenerational Learning not? Inter-generational learning does not: • Merely consist of generations being together – being together is not enough; [but based on purposeful activities]; • Mean every learning process which involves both young and old is necessarily a case of inter-generational learning [but 80% of all learning is informal and unintentional]; • Involve just the transfer of knowledge. [but also attitudes and values]. Source: Kolland, F. (2008): What is inter-generational learning in a higher education setting? In: Waxenegger, A. on behalf of the Adding Quality to Life through Inter-Generational Learning via Universities (ADD LIFE) Consortium (Ed.): The ADD LIFE European Tool Kit for Developing Inter-generational Learning in Higher Education. Graz. Comments: Thomas Fischer (2011) on behalf of the European Map of Intergenerational Learning (EMIL) consortium. Stoke-on-Trent.
  6. 6. Core Principles of Intergenerational Learning • Mutual and Reciprocal Benefits; • Participatory; • Asset Based; • Well Planned; • Culturally Grounded; • Strengthens community bonds and promotes active citizenship; • Challenges Ageism; • Cross-disciplinary. Source: Alan Hatton-Jeo, Beth Johnson Foundation in: Almeida Pinto, T. (Ed.) (2009). Guide of Ideas for Planning and Implementing Intergenerational Projects. Together: yesterday, today and tomorrow. MATES Consortium & Association VIDA: Lisbon.
  7. 7. Top-12 Mistakes of Intergenerational Projects 1. Not preparing the groups individually and collectively; 2. Not having a mutually beneficial element for both groups; 3. Ignoring the experiences and beliefs of participants; 4. Not exploring the generational stereotypes in involved groups; 5. Trying to recruit people for boring activities; 6. Not sufficiently planning the project; 7. Not having committed and active partners; 8. Untrained and/or inexperienced staff; 9. Not considering the appropriateness of the approach to achieve the aims; 10. Not considering the time commitment of involved partners; 11. Using a short term and one-off approach; 12. Not understanding the concerns of participants and what stage they are at in their lifecycle. Source: Manchester City Council (2011): Manchester’s Intergenerational Practice Toolkit. Creating Connections, Breaking Down Barriers’; Manchester City Council: Manchester.
  8. 8. Fundamental Questions in the Design Phase 1. What are you going to do? 2. Why are you choosing an Intergenerational Practice approach? 3. What form(s) of Intergenerational Practice will work best and why? 4. Who will you be working with? 5. When and where will you be doing it? 6. What outcomes are you seeking? Source: Beth Johnson Foundation (2011). A Guide to Intergenerational Practice; Beth-Johnson-Foundation (BJF): Stoke-on-Trent.
  9. 9. The Big Foot Screening Questionnaire I • Author/institution; • Name of the experiment; • (Location / ‘Map’ of the experiment); • Rationale of the experiment (incl. i) aims, objectives; ii) problems/needs addressed; iii) activities; iv) participants and their encouragement; v) pedagogical approach; vi) learning materials & support; vii) use of ICTs; viii) organisation of interaction; ix) role of facilitators/tutors; x) expected outcomes and impacts); • Target group(s) of the experiment (incl. i) age range; ii) numbers; iii) other actors, stakeholders and institutions); • Organisational arrangements for the experiment (e.g. i) start/end date; ii) frequency of activities; iii) obstacles [initial risk and failure analysis]; iv) need for additional expertise);
  10. 10. The Big Foot Screening Questionnaire II • Location of the experiment (e.g. formal /informal setting); • Learning activities/Fields of Learning (e.g. i) community development; ii) E&T; iii) mentoring; iv) mediation; v) digital literacy; vi) social inclusion; vii) employability; viii) health; ix) arts; x) environment etc). • Knowledge Exchange/Information Flow (i.e. down-/upstream, balanced/bi-directional); • Interactions between Target Groups (e.g. many-to-many; group based; physical/virtual/blended); • Categories of the Learning Activity (i.e. formal/non-formal/informal); • Competences addressed (i.e. EU Key Competences; OECD/DeSeCo);
  11. 11. The Big Foot Screening Questionnaire III • Expected outcomes of the experiment; • Evaluation / validation of the experiment; • Web 2.0 Technologies used during the experiment; • Link to the BIG FOOT web site; • External resources (e.g. online, offline).
  12. 12. The EAGLE Handbook for Intergenerational Activities
  13. 13. The RCT Tool-kit for Intergenerational School Projects 1. LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS: • Establish Partnerships • Create Project Brief • Early Paperwork 2. PROJECT PLANNING & RESEARCH (1) • Research other Projects • Research Relevant Legislation • Consider Logistics • Plan Budgets 2. PROJECT PLANNING & RESEARCH (2) • Issue Plan and Contingency Plan • Risk Assessment • Plan Monitoring and Evaluation • 3. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION • Action Liaison & Info Sessions • Run the Project! • Monitor & Record • Mid-Project Review 4. CELEBRATE, CLOSE & REVIEW • Celebrate Successes • Present Project Outputs • Publicise Successes • Thank All Involved Source: Rhondda Cynon Taf (RCT) County Borough Council (2008). Engagement – A Strategic Review of Intergenerational School Projects within Rhondda Cynon Taf. Rhondda Cynon Taf (RCT) County Borough Council: Tonypandy.
  14. 14. Assessing, Evaluating & Validating the Big Foot Experiments I Main Principles of the Big Foot Evaluation & Validation:  Triangulated: i.e. data need to be drawn from different sources, reflecting the perspectives of different actors and their different constructions of reality;  Multi-methodological: i.e. different types of data need to be gathered incl. statistical data (e.g. from user profiles), secondary data (e.g. evaluation reports) and primary data (e.g. user surveys); Discursive: i.e. able to capture the ‘discourses’ and ‘communicative practices’ of the learning processes; Localised: i.e. instruments translated into national languages. Source: (for all remaining slides) Links-up Consortium (2010). Methodology Report & Case Study Toolkit; Links-up Consortium & Innovation in Learning Institute (ILI), Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg: Erlangen.
  15. 15. Assessing, Evaluating & Validating the Big Foot Experiments II Main Elements (at least three out of four): • Step 1: Desk research based Content Analysis; overview of the project set in its wider socio-economic context  WP 5: Participatory Mapping; • Step 2: Interviews (e.g. face-to-face; focus groups; telephone / Skype; web) with key stakeholders (i.e. programme or case managers)  top-down perspective; • Step 3: Involvement of learners or end-users either through SAQs, Focus Group Discussions, Participants Feedback Sheets or Rating Scales on Intergenerational Understanding  ‘real’ life worlds, grassroots/bottom-up perspective; • Step 4: Observation and study visits of the actual learning in practice incl. the collection of products and artefacts.
  16. 16. Assessing, Evaluating & Validating the Big Foot Experiments III Instruments & Tools: 1. Participant Feedback Sheet; 2. Key Informant Interview Schedule; 3. User Self Administered Questionnaires (SAQ); 4. User Focus Group Guidelines; 5. Observation Guidelines; 6. Content Analysis Checklist; 7. Automated Data Collection Guidelines; 8. Behavioural Additionality Analysis; 9. Data Synthesis.
  19. 19. NO WAY!
  20. 20. LURKING
  21. 21. SOCIAL SOUND
  22. 22. INCLUSION !?
  24. 24. NETWORKS
  25. 25. Explore G8WAY @ or Contact me @ Thank you very much for your attention!